Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by wormraper

legality wise it's fine. they can sell as many as they want. it's just the CREDIBILITY that's at risk more than anything

It can get lower?

[skiizim]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

There is no legal liability here. The new editions will be different from the previous ones (new extras, new transfers, etc..). It is not an identical product, so there is zero legal grounds here. Hell, it could be identical aside from a different SKU and there'd still be no legal grounds

Hit it on the bulls eye, how many times haven't I seen an LE only to get released in completely different packing or even stripped bare of everything. It's happened many times with DVD.

[Bluebolt]

Originally Posted by wormraper

legality wise it's fine. they can sell as many as they want. it's just the CREDIBILITY that's at risk more than anything

Lawyers call it misrepresentation, and it's considered a cause of action. Then they sue. Then they take your money.

[deltasun]

Originally Posted by wormraper

legality wise it's fine. they can sell as many as they want. it's just the CREDIBILITY that's at risk more than anything

but you don't know what the contract explicitly states? how can you claim it's fine legality wise. unless i missed the part where the contract didn't specify the limit as one of its clauses.

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by Bluebolt

I wonder if they’ve considered their legal liability. They marketed and sold these blu-rays as limited editions of 3,000 units. Collectors made purchases, in part, on that basis. At the time it looked like somebody spent tens of thousands to scoop up Christine, and while I doubt any tears will be shed here for that party, it doesn’t mean there’s no case to be made.

Since they are not releasing the exact same release as before it would probably void the 3,000 unit contract of the previous release.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Bluebolt

Lawyers call it misrepresentation, and it's considered a cause of action. Then they sue. Then they take your money.

This deals with artwork, obviously something way more collectible than a Blu-ray, but it clearly has relevant points.

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Limited Edition Eggleston Photographs
Posted April 3rd, 2013 - by Kate Lucas
Categories: Art Market, Legal Developments
Tags: Photography

The Southern District of New York recently dismissed a lawsuit by plaintiff Jonathan Sobel concerning his collection of eight photographs by William Eggleston. Sobel v. Eggleston et al., 12-CV-02551 (S.D.N.Y.). The case raises a cautionary flag for art collectors who are interested in purchasing photographs and other works that can be produced in “multiples.”

Over a three-year period, Sobel purchased eight Eggleston photographs, each individually numbered, usually with a fraction, which Sobel claims was an express and implied representation that the photographs were limited-edition works (with the numerator being the specific image in the limited edition, and the denominator indicating the maximum number of images in the edition). However, defendants subsequently authorized Christie’s to sell eight “reprints” of the same images that Sobel had bought. The reprints were a different size and were created using a different production method than Sobel’s (the reprints were digitally manufactured from a file or a scanned print, while Sobel’s were believed to be made from Eggleston’s original negatives or slides using a dye transfer process).

Sobel sued Eggleston individually, and also named as defendants the trustees of the Eggleston Artistic Trust. Sobel’s claims included violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law (ACAL), fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. He sought money damages as well as an injunction preventing future production and sale of additional images.

Sobel’s ACAL claim hinged on certain statutory provisions regarding artwork that is offered in “multiples” or “as one of a limited edition.” The court, however, held that numbering a multiple does not create any warranty that would prevent future production of additional editions of a work; in fact, according to the court, the statute seems to contemplate that possibility by requiring that if a multiple “was made from a master which produced a prior limited edition,” that fact must be disclosed to a buyer. In other words, buyers of the reprints had a right to know of the existence of the earlier limited edition, but for purposes of Sobel’s claim, the numbers on his photographs were only a warranty about the total number of multiples in existence at the time Sobel bought them.

Likewise, weighing Sobel’s misrepresentation claims in the light most favorable to Sobel, the court held that the fractions on his photographs could be viewed as a representation that the limited edition contained only a certain number of multiples (the denominator), and that Eggleston would not increase that number in the future. But that representation was not false, the court held: Eggleston had neither misstated nor increased the number of multiples in the limited edition. Rather, he produced a whole new edition—the reprints—which differed from Sobel’s limited edition in size and production medium and method.

The case, demonstrates the importance of seeking expert advice before making a major purchase of artwork. This is particularly vital when it comes to photographs and other types of art that can be or have been produced in multiples—or might be reproduced in the future. This means discussing important terms involved in the purchase (for example, “limited editions” and “reprints”), knowing exactly what is being sold, and understanding what warranties and guarantees are (and are not) being made about the work. Advance diligence can help to set expectations and ensure that a collector can preserve the value and enjoyment of a work now and in the future.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Bluebolt

Lawyers call it misrepresentation, and it's considered a cause of action. Then they sue. Then they take your money.

Lawyers try all sorts of idiotic suits in the name of collecting money. More often than not they get thrown out of court.

I wonder if they’ve considered their legal liability. They marketed and sold these blu-rays as limited editions of 3,000 units. Collectors made purchases, in part, on that basis. At the time it looked like somebody spent tens of thousands to scoop up Christine, and while I doubt any tears will be shed here for that party, it doesn’t mean there’s no case to be made.

There's no liability. When Twilight Time released the original discs, they called it a limited edition, and claimed that they had no plans to go back to press on them. That wasn't a false claim: at that time they had no such plans. The fact that three years later their plans changed is irrelevant. To win a claim against them, a lawyer would have to prove that they deliberately made a statement that they knew wasn't true for the purposes of deceiving their customers. Unless there's a "smoking gun" memo, that would be impossible to prove.

Back in 1982, a small press book publisher name Don Grant published a limited edition book by Stephen King called The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger. It was an edition of 500 signed & numbered copies and 10,000 unsigned copies. Wasn't sold in any stores. You pretty much had to mail-order it or buy it from Don at a convention. There was never any intention to print any more copies. It was different enough from King's usual work that King himself didn't think it would be of much interest to his general fan base.

He was wrong. Word of it got around, and people were besieging bookstores trying to get hold of a copy. Two years after the first edition was released (and it had sold out damn quick), Grant did a second edition of 10,000 copies. Eventually, it got published in unlimited trade paperback editions available pretty much everywhere.

The point is that none of the people who bought that first edition, either the signed or unsigned, ever considered that there was any legal basis for suing Don Grant for "misrepresenting" the limited-ness of the book.

[oildude]

Wow, I never knew there were so many legal scholars participating in this thread. Very cool.

Now that I know that......my condo neighbor has a poodle that barks continuously. Can I claim "poodle rage" as a defense if I take lethal action at 3 a.m.?

[kaseaver]

TT made it know that they had a 3-year license and that each edition was limited to 3,000. This created artificial scarcity when demand exceeded 3,000 units. Many who bought TT titles did so as collectors who didn't want to wait 3 or more years to acquire them. The perceived scarcity justified TT's high price point and limited distribution model.

Changing the product in terms of cover art or extras imo wouldn't justify a new release within the 3 year period because the basic product is the same. Perhaps a new superior scan would. But then people that bought the first release would be pissed that a superior product was made available so soon after they bought it. Look at what happened with The Lady from Shanghai BD.

The question of when the 3 year period starts should be settled imo by the release date, otherwise what food is it to consumers. TT could sit on a title for 2.5 years and re-release it 6 months later if it proved to be popular.

[Keyser Soze.]

Stop being silly oildude. "Poodle rage" is not a real thing, and is nothing like "Twilight rage".

Twilight rage can be proven in a court of law.

[Scooter1836]

Originally Posted by oildude

Wow, I never knew there were so many legal scholars participating in this thread. Very cool.

Now that I know that......my condo neighbor has a poodle that barks continuously. Can I claim "poodle rage" as a defense if I take lethal action at 3 a.m.?

Barking poodle - YouTube

[jshaide]

Just buy your movie, watch your movie, and be happy you have it.

[AUS1969]

It would be heartbreaking to see all those "collectors" who scarfed up multiple copies in order to make a killing on ebay disapppointed. Not! There's a German edition due in September anyway.

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by kaseaver

TT made it know that they had a 3-year license and that each edition was limited to 3,000. This created artificial scarcity when demand exceeded 3,000 units. Many who bought TT titles did so as collectors who didn't want to wait 3 or more years to acquire them. The perceived scarcity justified TT's high price point and limited distribution model.

Changing the product in terms of cover art or extras imo wouldn't justify a new release within the 3 year period because the basic product is the same. Perhaps a new superior scan would. But then people that bought the first release would be pissed that a superior product was made available so soon after they bought it. Look at what happened with The Lady from Shanghai BD.

The question of when the 3 year period starts should be settled imo by the release date, otherwise what food is it to consumers. TT could sit on a title for 2.5 years and re-release it 6 months later if it proved to be popular.

This thread is awesome. So much of that is conjecture on your part, but you don't see it's legally inadmissable - unless you have a memo that says " we can use perception of scarcity to justify our high price point and limited distribution model" but they still don't charge MSRP as hi as Criterion.

Unless you're a lawyer perhaps we should stick to movies.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by kaseaver

The question of when the 3 year period starts should be settled imo by the release date, otherwise what food is it to consumers. TT could sit on a title for 2.5 years and re-release it 6 months later if it proved to be popular.

Well, to be frank, I don't think you -- or any of us -- get to decide when the "3 year period" starts. I would imagine that the licensing contract gets to decide. No studio would be stupid enough to let it be defined as starting whenever TT feels like getting around to producing and releasing the disc. Chances are it starts with the signing of the contract, or a mutually agreed (in the contract) point within a reasonable time of the signing of the contract.

I think people tend to think of it as "release date + 3 years" because no one has any inside info on what the contracts specify, and when the contracts get signed. So, the release date (or, I suppose, the pre-order date) is the only date that we can reasonably latch onto as a beginning point.

[CraigThom]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Well, to be frank, I don't think you -- or any of us -- get to decide when the "3 year period" starts. I would imagine that the licensing contract gets to decide. No studio would be stupid enough to let it be defined as starting whenever TT feels like getting around to producing and releasing the disc. Chances are it starts with the signing of the contract, or a mutually agreed (in the contract) point within a reasonable time of the signing of the contract.

I think people tend to think of it as "release date + 3 years" because no one has any inside info on what the contracts specify, and when the contracts get signed. So, the release date (or, I suppose, the pre-order date) is the only date that we can reasonably latch onto as a beginning point.

Especially since Twilight Time pays the studio the royalties up front. It would make sense that the clock starts when the contract is signed or when the payment is made, but none of us know, and I'm sure the date is spelled out I'm the contract.

I think some people don't really understand the Twilight Time business model. It isn't about making special limited editions; it's paying the studio up front for 3000 copies of the movie to make it a more attractive deal.

[LucasM2012]

My understanding of the way it has been stated all along is that no-one other than Twilight Time could release the film domestically within the three year period. The time period is not locked to the 3000 copies - it is locked to Twilight Time being the only one to release the film.

If that is the case, any date would be a meaningless reference for another Twilight Time release: because it would still be Twilight Time releasing the Blu-ray.

In other words: The three year period was for 'exclusivity'. Them re-releasing something themselves does not violate that exclusivity. Therefore the 'three years' is irrelevant to them. Like a countdown timer, they can add more years to the already-counting time period if they and the studio decide to.

[Scooter1836]

So since the thread is just completely off the rails and thrashing on the exclusivity, and re-releases

I just have one question...What about the "Poodle Rage"?

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by dsman71

A quote from them :
Twilight Time DVD Label The other two haven't been mentioned but one will be the brand new 4 k restoration of journey to the center of the Earth.

Wait, where is this from?

That's awesome news if true. Time to unload Journey.

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

Wait, where is this from?

That's awesome news if true. Time to unload Journey.

better do it quick, as stock in that title is about to drop FAST as copies flood on news of a better version.